Will Native Instruments release a JUCE framework alternative?

[discoDSP]

Yup, but look at Microsoft for example. 10 years ago nobody would have think of them supporting open source but they own github now for example.

It scares me actually

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE

[Topcheese]

I'm not saying they need to run out and jump on the bandwagon, but OS can be used to help maintain your dominance is one of the things I was trying to suggest. A case in point.
Edit: The link is regarding MS open-sourcing its ENTIRE catalog.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft ... portfolio/

[faxinadu]

reaktor and kontakt are the ni dev platforms. it is an ideal setup for ni with kontakt and reaktor player. From a business perspective it would make no sense to release a plugin development platform that could threaten reaktor and kontakt, for now anyways,imo.

anyhow, a juce like cpp framework... what for? lets advance to a combination of flow based programing and code together. They have that product already in a mature v6 Reaktor. If anything, the direction could be vsti/au targets for reaktor builds, with further refinement and ability to maybe use code blocks as modules, this makes more sense, but again, threatens the business model at this point in time.

[faxinadu]

@discoDSP - drop NI an email asking about NKS integration for existing VSTi if you haven't yet, you might be pleasantly surprised by the response

[discoDSP]

@discoDSP - drop NI an email asking about NKS integration for existing VSTi if you haven't yet, you might be pleasantly surprised by the response

I have the NKS SDK since last year, but the coder hired for the task got sick and the feature was placed on hold. I expect NKS to be ready in Discovery Pro 6.10.

[whyterabbyt]

I'm not saying they need to run out and jump on the bandwagon, but OS can be used to help maintain your dominance is one of the things I was trying to suggest. A case in point.
Edit: The link is regarding MS open-sourcing its ENTIRE catalog.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft ... portfolio/

jeez, please stop posting this in the context of software. its their patents, not actual source code.

[Topcheese]

I'm not saying they need to run out and jump on the bandwagon, but OS can be used to help maintain your dominance is one of the things I was trying to suggest. A case in point.
Edit: The link is regarding MS open-sourcing its ENTIRE catalog.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft ... portfolio/

jeez, please stop posting this in the context of software. its their patents, not actual source code.

Can you tell me what the patents are for, because I can't believe that they are fully supporting OS?

[faxinadu]

@discoDSP - drop NI an email asking about NKS integration for existing VSTi if you haven't yet, you might be pleasantly surprised by the response

I have the NKS SDK since last year, but the coder hired for the task got sick and the feature was placed on hold. I expect NKS to be ready in Discovery Pro 6.10.

awesome

[whyterabbyt]

I'm not saying they need to run out and jump on the bandwagon, but OS can be used to help maintain your dominance is one of the things I was trying to suggest. A case in point.
Edit: The link is regarding MS open-sourcing its ENTIRE catalog.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft ... portfolio/

jeez, please stop posting this in the context of software. its their patents, not actual source code.

Can you tell me what the patents are for, because I can't believe that they are fully supporting OS?

A patent is protection for a method of doing something. Its not an implementation. Anyone could implement a patented method however they choose, but the patent means that permission is required and royalties could be leveraged for doing so. Open sourcing patents means that anyone can use those patented methods, royalty free, however they implement them.
These methods are usually not products of any kind, they are ways to design components that could be used in a product.

Source code is the human-readable implementation of 'something' in software. That something could be patented, or not. Source code is required to generate the working version of any software. The same method could be implemented in many different source code versions, and none need be derivative of some 'original' source code. Make source code open source means that someone could use the exact same code.

What MS are doing is making it possible for people to reuse MS's methods for doing things; that does not mean that they have shared any access to the things that MS have created using those methods.

[Topcheese]

A patent is protection for a method of doing something. Its not an implementation. Anyone could implement a patented method however they choose, but the patent means that permission is required and royalties could be leveraged for doing so. Open sourcing patents means that anyone can use those patented methods, royalty free, however they implement them.
These methods are usually not products of any kind, they are ways to design components that could be used in a product.

Source code is the human-readable implementation of 'something' in software. That something could be patented, or not. Source code is required to generate the working version of any software. The same method could be implemented in many different source code versions, and none need be derivative of some 'original' source code. Make source code open source means that someone could use the exact same code.

What MS are doing is making it possible for people to reuse MS's methods for doing things; that does not mean that they have shared any access to the things that MS have created using those methods.

So I guess we going to argue over the semantics, but seeing that MS now owns Github, I'm pretty sure it's all pretty much now on the Git platform. It may not all be in a public repo, but that's just splitting hairs.

The point is that you still danced around the fact that the patents are for their "method of doing something" i.e. building airplanes ... no wait that's Boeing!
With that said, I also don't know many open-source projects that don't release their source, despite MS trying to redefine OS by joining a consortium.

I appreciate the effort in correcting me.

[whyterabbyt]

So I guess we going to argue over the semantics

You might; Im just pointing out one simple fact; Patents aren't source code. There's no semantics there to argue over.

, but seeing that MS now owns Github, I'm pretty sure it's all pretty much now on the Git platform. It may not all be in a public repo, but that's just splitting hairs

No, their patents wont be going on github, because github is a code repository, and they're not making all their source code open source so that wont all be going on github.

Patents aren't source code.

The point is that you still danced around the fact that the patents are for their "method of doing something" i.e. building airplanes ... no wait that's Boeing!

There's no 'dancing around' on my part, you got an answer to your question whether you comprehend it or not. And clearly you dont; you're conflating what MS have done with something they havent done, and, despite asking for the difference, are being all silly about having being given an answer.

Patents aren't source code.

Feel free to try and compile your own fork of Word from those patents, though.

[resynthesis]

To reinforce the point above, MS are extremely unlikely to open source Windows or Office in the near future (if ever). A couple of people in my research group worked on a project with Microsoft and had access to Windows' source code. They were, however, told in no uncertain terms that the code was definitely not for public consumption and it needed to remain private even within the group.

[Topcheese]

So I guess we going to argue over the semantics

You might; Im just pointing out one simple fact; Patents aren't source code. There's no semantics there to argue over.

, but seeing that MS now owns Github, I'm pretty sure it's all pretty much now on the Git platform. It may not all be in a public repo, but that's just splitting hairs

No, their patents wont be going on github, because github is a code repository, and they're not making all their source code open source so that wont all be going on github.

Patents aren't source code.

The point is that you still danced around the fact that the patents are for their "method of doing something" i.e. building airplanes ... no wait that's Boeing!

There's no 'dancing around' on my part, you got an answer to your question whether you comprehend it or not. And clearly you dont; you're conflating what MS have done with something they havent done, and, despite asking for the difference, are being all silly about having being given an answer.

Patents aren't source code.

Feel free to try and compile your own fork of Word from those patents, though.

And nowhere did I claim a Patent is the source code, but I think your last point may have drove it home. I guess it's not the technical specifications, but then it becomes more like trying to release a standard.

Again thanks for taking the time to help me see the err on my side.

[Topcheese]

To reinforce the point above, MS are extremely unlikely to open source Windows or Office in the near future (if ever). A couple of people in my research group worked on a project with Microsoft and had access to Windows' source code. They were, however, told in no uncertain terms that the code was definitely not for public consumption and it needed to remain private even within the group.

Unless either one of you run Microsoft, your guess is as good as mine on what they're going to do. MS is doing a lot of things other commercial companies aren't doing, but let me give you a recent quote from the horses mouth. I guess only time will tell.

"We recognized open source is something that every developer can benefit from. It's not nice, it's essential. It's not just code, it's community. We don't just throw code on the website. We openly publish our roadmap, and we have 20,000 Microsoft employees on GitHub. With over 2,000 open-source projects, we're the largest open-source project supporter in the world."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft ... portfolio/

[whyterabbyt]

To reinforce the point above, MS are extremely unlikely to open source Windows or Office in the near future (if ever). A couple of people in my research group worked on a project with Microsoft and had access to Windows' source code. They were, however, told in no uncertain terms that the code was definitely not for public consumption and it needed to remain private even within the group.

Unless either one of you run Microsoft, your guess is as good as mine on what they're going to do. MS is doing a lot of things other commercial companies aren't doing, but let me give you a recent quote from the horses mouth. I guess only time will tell.

"We recognized open source is something that every developer can benefit from. It's not nice, it's essential. It's not just code, it's community. We don't just throw code on the website. We openly publish our roadmap, and we have 20,000 Microsoft employees on GitHub. With over 2,000 open-source projects, we're the largest open-source project supporter in the world."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft ... portfolio/

well, time has already told regarding those patents, if you're not a member of that patent consortium. you did realise that they're not opening their patents to everyone, didnt you?